Twitter, Musk get October date for $44b deal trial

After a Delaware judge ruled yesterday that the social media business deserved a speedy resolution of the deal’s uncertainties, Twitter’s lawsuit to hold Elon Musk to his $44 billion takeover of the microblogging site will go to trial in October.
The decision is a setback for Musk, who pushed for a trial in February, claiming that it would enable a thorough probe into the actual number of spam accounts on the network, according to his attorney. Twitter had asked for a trial in September. 
The parties can handle an accelerated trial, according to Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Court of Chancery in Delaware. 
She said, referring to Twitter, “The reality is delay poses irreparable injury to the sellers.” She gave the parties five days to plan the trial’s schedule, which she set.
The Twitter stock increased throughout the morning, according to Reuters, and was up 3.6% at $39.81 in the early afternoon. 
Twitter is requesting that McCormick find Musk in violation of the merger agreement and order him to complete the merger at the agreed-upon price of $54.20 per share. It said that in the event that Musk was ordered to close and further legal action was subsequently required to handle financing, it requested the earliest trial date feasible.
During the hearing, Twitter’s attorney, William Savitt, contended that the quantity of spam and bot accounts on the service had no influence on the company’s agreement with Musk. Musk, according to him, seized on the matter in an effort to “conjure an exit ramp for a deal that doesn’t have one.”
An accelerated trial, according to Musk, would shield the public from learning the truth about spam. 
At the hearing, Musk’s attorney alleged that Twitter was being slow to answer to Musk’s demands for details on how to calculate the number of spam accounts. 
According to Andrew Rossman, Musk’s attorney, “Mr. Musk started asking questions, and the answers he got were disturbing.” Musk’s queries concerning Twitter’s spam accounts will require months of data analysis, according to him.
Rossman refuted the idea that Musk was aiming to hurt Twitter by pointing out that the billionaire had a larger stake than all of Twitter’s board members put together. 
The stakes for Twitter were reportedly high even with this scheduling conflict. Before Musk’s involvement, the company was already having difficulty expanding its user base and advertising business. Now, it and many other tech companies are cutting costs due to high inflation and worries about a recession.
In order to minimize uncertainty for its shareholders, employees, and customers, as well as any commercial repercussions that could be worsened by expensive, protracted litigation, Twitter needs a quick resolution to the conflict with Musk. 
Despite the fact that yesterday’s session was mostly procedural, it provided a glimpse into how each party can handle what is expected to be a convoluted legal process. It could also give an indication of the judge’s strategy for handling the case. 
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, stated that there might be cues from what she asks, says, and hears during the hearing that could reveal anything.